The main reason that nukes are often times not allowed is because of the loophole abuse of skipping your turns. But as grady said, clans are more than welcome to use it in their challenges if both sides agree to it up front.

pearljamrox2 wrote:Not just skipping turns, but letting the time run out so you don't get another card.

Which is an unintended gameplay mechanic that users are specifically using the game the system.

Oh, I'm sorry...did you invent nuclear spoils? Please, tell us all about your intentions for them.

Also, tell me about escalating spoils. If I began my turn, make an attack...then a thunderstorm knocks out my power before I'm able to end my turn...I don't get a card. Why did the makers of escalating spoils want to punish me because i lost power. The person who invented escalating spoils is a cruel intentioned bastard if you ask me.

Why is it so hard to understand that in nuclear spoils...if you are going to do nothing but hurt yourself by turning in your cards...why do it? This is a strategy game you know. It isn't an unfair advantage. You dont get to blow up the other guy either..or reinforce armies anywhere.

I wonder if the person who first invented bombardments intended for you to be able to get a card by bombing a neutral 1 over and over and over every turn and get a card for it....even though you aren't conquering a territory..or even changing ownership of the property. Is that an intended game play usage of bombardments...because if it wasn't thought of beforehand...people are gaming the system by getting easy cards and we probably shouldn't allow maps that have bombardments anymore in clan wars so the abuse doesn't affect anyone negatively.

Just want to say before I go into any of the below that I have nothing against allowing Nukes (or any gametype) in clan wars. Whatever two clans want to agree to, they should be allowed to. I also believe that there would be absolutely no problems or gaming the system in 99% of the wars. G1 has allowed nukes to be chosen in a few of our clanwars, though I don't believe anyone has ever used the option.

I am only trying to answer the question in the OP as to why they commonly are not used.

Also, tell me about escalating spoils. If I began my turn, make an attack...then a thunderstorm knocks out my power before I'm able to end my turn...I don't get a card. Why did the makers of escalating spoils want to punish me because i lost power. The person who invented escalating spoils is a cruel intentioned bastard if you ask me.

Which is why if you read some of the posts I've made over the years in the suggestions forum I have always argued that you should automatically get a card at the end of every turn (whether you pushed finish or not) in which you successfully attacked a territory. I don't see any reason why the game should allow you to make attacks and not get a card. You won't ever see people sitting around a Risk board "waiting their turn out" to not take a card.

This is the same reason why I avoid playing Freestyle with untrustworthy players. Taking advantage of the loophole to not end your turn to get two consecutive turns has no part of honorable clan wars.

pearljamrox2 wrote:Why is it so hard to understand that in nuclear spoils...if you are going to do nothing but hurt yourself by turning in your cards...why do it? This is a strategy game you know. It isn't an unfair advantage. You dont get to blow up the other guy either..or reinforce armies anywhere.

Because it is not part of standard gameplay? Why is that so hard to understand? Standard gameplay clearly states that if you make a successful attack that you are supposed to receive a card.

pearljamrox2 wrote:I wonder if the person who first invented bombardments intended for you to be able to get a card by bombing a neutral 1 over and over and over every turn and get a card for it....even though you aren't conquering a territory..or even changing ownership of the property. Is that an intended game play usage of bombardments...because if it wasn't thought of beforehand...people are gaming the system by getting easy cards and we probably shouldn't allow maps that have bombardments anymore in clan wars so the abuse doesn't affect anyone negatively.

Oh good, I was waiting for a useless slippery slope fallacy. Bombarding still is making a successful attack which qualifies for a card.

Bones wrote:Because it is not part of standard gameplay? Why is that so hard to understand? Standard gameplay clearly states that if you make a successful attack that you are supposed to receive a card.

It's not part of Standard gameplay? I disagree. On this website, it is part of the game play. If you don't end your turn within an hour of beginning your turn....you do not get a card. Everyone knows that. As I've stated before....It's like in the NFL. If it's 4th down, and you are just outside of field goal range, you have to punt. But if you punt you are likely to kick it into the end zone for a touchback and they get the ball at the 20 yard line. OR you could take a delay of game penalty and give yourself a few more yards to try to pin them on the goal line. Is that using a loophole in the rules? Or is it strategically taking a penalty to better position yourself. All the teams have the same rules and can use them in the same ways.

Bones wrote:Oh good, I was waiting for a useless slippery slope fallacy. Bombarding still is making a successful attack which qualifies for a card.

Maybe you don't like this analogy, but I think it fits as a counter to your argument about the "intentions" of nuclear spoils. Is that what they intended as the projected game play on Feudal War...or Greater China..or whatever was the first map to have bombardments? Did they intend for someone to just stack armies...bombard single neutrals...without changing the board in any way and still get a card, or is that a strategy that was developed by a thoughtful player? I'd be willing to bet that Bombardments were meant as an exciting new twist to a map in the beginning, but did they INTEND for it to be used as an endless card spot? I don't really care too much about what their intentions were at the time....or as some people say.."oh it goes against the spirit of the game." Really? The spirit of the game is to knowingly blow yourself up..even if you can find a way around it. Because I thought the spirit of the game was to try to win.

What if you are playing a map with killer neutrals? And the other team, right before your turn, eliminates all your territories except for 1 that will revert to neutral when you begin your turn. You have 5 cards, it's escalating...your next teammate can take you out..the other team can't reach you before then. Are you really gonna begin your turn? That would be suicide...your cards would go to waste and your team will lose the game. Would you do the best strategic move and miss your turn...or would you just give the other team the game?

I play to win. I understand that this website gives you a certain amount of time to begin your turn, and a certain amount of time to complete your turn..and I know what the penalties are for not accomplishing it. It's part of the game play.